98% of all the data is worthless in 10 years anyways.
I have a box here of photographs, slides and super-8, some of which are > 100 years old and still in "relatively" good condition. They show things as esoteric as the Queen Marys first visit to the port of Fremantle, through to my grandparents and parents history. Based on the rate of deterioration, I'd be surprised if they weren't still readable in another 100 years.
I have a (several) hard drive full of photos and video of my dead son. They document and detail a significant part of his life and are the only remaining visual artifacts we have of him. We can print them out, but the prints deteriorate rapidly when compared to a proper photographic process. Therefore we're left to curate and manage this digital archive. It won't be worthless in 10 years, but unless it's replicated onto new media periodically it also won't be readable. I don't trust the LTO will still be readable in 50 years (as specified), and even if it is maintaining a working drive to retrieve it will be a challenge. So we're left to ensure the storage media is kept up to date. Currently magnetic trumps solid state for longevity, so I don't see hard disks going away any time soon.
Multiple copies of the digital files are definitely important.
But FYI, the longevity of printed copies depends entirely on the printing process used.
You can still get silver halide based digital photo prints done at some photo labs/studios. But it’s becoming hard to find for sure. And remember that color silver halide doesn’t last that well, especially in sunlight. Look at how color photos from the 60s have deteriorated as the color dyes fade.
Dye sublimation looks great, but I don’t think it’s the very best for archival storage, since it’s dye based.
Laser printouts should be very durable (since the colors are pigments, not dyes), but they aren’t the very best photo quality.
Inkjet is where the professional market has gone. But don’t think for a moment that it’s the same as what you get from a $100 home inkjet. Most home inkjets use dye inks, which aren’t that great for longevity, and when printed on plain paper the lightfastness is poor. But if you use a printer with archival pigment inks, on the matching photo paper, the results should last at least as long as color silver halide prints, if not longer.
Both Canon and Epson have pigment-based photo inkjet printers, but only Epson has inks that are expressly claimed to be archival. (And not on all models, you must look carefully.) With that said, even dye prints on photo paper, stored in ideal conditions (in the dark, stacked to keep oxygen away) last a long time. I have photos I printed on a dye-based Canon 20 years ago, onto Canon and Ilford photo papers, stored properly, and they look the same as they did when first printed. Prints protected by glass (i.e. framed) also last a lot longer, since glass blocks UV and oxygen quite effectively.
Many photo labs now use inkjet, too, both from Epson and Canon, but also from the traditional vendors of photo lab equipment, like Noritusu. (Some is pigment based, others dye-based, though they swear they’re long-lasting dyes that resist fading.)
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
